Johnny_Butane
-
Posts
2441 -
Joined
-
Quote:Except this time they can't sell CoH when they want to focus on their new project.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
All of a sudden, I'm getting flashbacks to the "Surviving 15" of pre-NCNC days. It also makes me feel old.
. -
Quote:Ah-HA! I should have known.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
coca cola.
. -
Quote:As an anecdote, something that came to mind when thinking about the 2008 numbers versus the 2011 numbers: the leveling curve change. I find myself more likely to roll some ATs(and sets) now that I know are 'late bloomers' because the path to 50 isn't as long as it once was. Obviously, I'm not a Blaster person, but I have a few high level Blasters now that would never have gotten as far in the old days.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Perhaps not, but in combination with the 2008 numbers a trend does begin to suggest itself, at least on the hero side. There's a significant gap in popularity between the "offensive" archetypes of Blasters and Scrappers, and the "support" types of Defenders, Tankers, and Controllers. And interesting, alone among the three "support" types Controllers seem to gain ground over time - i.e. they become increasingly more popular with increasing level. That's highly suggestive to me that what might cause that is the fact that Controllers slowly cease to be support-focused types and become more offensive, at least in terms of playstyle if not in terms of raw numbers. When players realize that Controllers can go both ways, particularly by level 50, they become "stickier" - people play them more often, and that boosts their population numbers.
They may also steal attention from Defenders, which may explain why Tankers are more popular than Defenders: Defenders face more competition for attention. The numbers could be interpreted as saying the players perceive the overlap between Controllers and Defenders as being more serious than the overlap between Tankers and Scrappers. There's no way yet to compare Tankers to Brutes, because we don't have numbers from a period of time when they could be created without barriers between them.
Its also noteworthy that the seven year numbers correlate strongly to the trends expressed in the 2008 numbers. The numbers showed Controllers on the rise and Blasters steeply falling and that is a match for the 2011 numbers. If the 2011 numbers were totals from launch, it would suggests the trends seen in 2008 were more or less similar to the overall trend from launch. The only thing the 2008 numbers do not predict in the 2011 numbers is the switch between Brutes and Masterminds, which were fairly close to begin with.
. -
Quote:I have to question what the anniversary numbers are counting. Are those the number of those ATs rolled/logged since launch, in the last year before the graphic was made, etc?Originally Posted by Arcanaville
In fact, both the archetype statistics from 2008 and the seven year anniversary statistics showed that Tankers were more popular than Defenders. And more interestingly, there appears to have been a shift from 2008 to 2011 where for much of their career Tankers are apparently now more popular than Controllers, Controllers only overtaking them at or near level 50 (even more dramatically, they appear to overtake Blasters as well, coming second only to Scrappers).
It doesn't say from what I can see, and if it's the totals since launch, that's not going to show us any useful information or trends.
And I agree, the numbers since the morality system and side switching came into effect would be very interesting. There's another infographic I recall seeing not long ago (perhaps around Freedom's launch). IIRC, it did have some stats about the morality system and side swapping, namely, what the most popular ATs for switching sides were, etc.
. -
Quote:Person A: I want a cheese sandwich.Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
Correct. You said "if you want" and then listed a bunch of things that you've lobbied for for years. Either you no longer want tankers to have buffed damage or you just admitted that you believe they should be the AT that leads teams.
Person B: I want a pizza.
Both are made with dough and cheese, but they're not the same and a person wanting one does not necessarily mean they'd want the other.
. -
Quote:No, I said "if you want" and proceeded to point out that if New Dawn wanted Tankers to be the 'leader AT', that leaders tend to be the big guns for their teams and not mediocre fighters only used for decoys.Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
Seems to me you think they maybe should be "the leader AT!"
. -
That is working as intended.
Bruising works by giving the AV a power that makes it debuff itself, getting around the purple patch. It will always increase the damage a target takes 20% regardless if it's an AV, GM or whatever. The trade off is it doesn't stack, even from multiple Tankers, while other kinds of -Res debuffs can.
. -
Quote:So you'd nerf one of the most popular ATs in the game rather than see Tankers be improved?Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
I think letting brutes cap resist at 85% like EATs would be a step in the right direction.
Nice.
. -
Quote:I don't know if you're asking me specifically what I think of such an idea, but as to the idea in general, you need to re-read what I said. Tankers are NOT the "leader AT", nor should they be. The leader of the team, regardless of the AT, is the leader. Period. Some Tanker players already have it in their head to boss everyone around and need to be the center of attention and hold ALL the aggro. They even flip out if a Brute takes any, which is why you've got these people asking for aggro cap buffs and higher threat.Originally Posted by Lightslinger
This inspired me, what if Tanks were given a solo damage buff like Defenders, then as they team the damage buff is replaced by a Leadership-esque team buff?
Call it Mantle of Leadership like you said. The buff could be a combined Assault-Tactics that extended to the whole team/league and stacked as other Tankers are added.
Even better, what if the buff adjusted based on the team makeup like Kheldian's cosmic balance works? On a high DPS team Mantle of Leadership swaps to +Def/+Res & Tactics, on a low DPS team, Mantle of Leadership swaps to +Dam & Tactics. It could even extend a tiny bit of mez protection for the squishies.
And Tankers on their own will be easily hitting the cap with Hybrid Assault if it comes out as is. On teams or leagues, it just takes a single Kin to get them there. Lack of damage buffs isn't what's holding Tankers back damage-wise, it's their low damage cap.
If they were to introduce something like that, they would likely make it so it didn't stack from multiple Tankers, defeating the purpose of it making multiple Tankers more useful. The devs are cautious of stacking buffs because they get pretty OP.Quote:I'm not sure if that's possible, but that would definitely make teams appreciate the Tank (and especially multiple tanks) more and when solo would give the Tank a bit more damage.
. -
Quote:If that was the case the changes wouldn't have increased the Stalker HP cap and they would have made them more dependent on Assassin Strike and less able at scrapping after the AS.Originally Posted by JayboH
No, you are twisting things. They altered Stalkers to be closer to the original design goal; that is, the single-target damage kings and is still the lowest-armored melee class.
But doing that would have been stupid, like giving more survivability to Tankers. They're already the most survivable AT in the game and survivability is the last thing giving them problems. Their problem is being one trick ponies that sacrifice far too much for aggro control when we don't really need a supreme aggro control AT because we've got two other ATs, three if you count Masterminds, intended to share aggro and tanking duties. Pushing Tankers further into that niche wont help them.
. -
Quote:And there is an equal if not greater number of people who resent Tankers 'taking control', especially when the Tanker doesn't have the star and it's completely unsolicited. The Bossy Tank stereotype exists for a reason.Originally Posted by New Dawn
It does take a certain amount of leadership qualities in a person to really get to grips with a Tanker but if the *Ahem* hits the fan, players might still see who is directly responsible
So, Tankers should be a crutch so bad players don't have to take responsibility for their own actions?Quote:they could be a Brute bringing more mobs too early to the team with an already aggro capped Tanker leaving the team with not a lot that is game mechanically possible. I am sure the Brute made himself feel Pro for a moment before needing to be saved and losing aggro to others. I bet such a Brute player would agree that Tankers need a higher aggro cap.
Sorry, no.
ONE Tanker should not be an aggro catch all. The situation above is why you take a second Tanker, or you kick the player being an idiot.
Those are qualities that come from a player, not a class, regardless of the AT they are playing.Quote:A natural born leader deals with accountability and responsibility.
The Tanker AT is NOT the defacto leader. Whoever forms the team is the leader, and they call the shots until you're told otherwise. You set your ego aside and work with the team. This isn't your show. It isn't all about the Tanker with the spotlight on you. Don't act like a control freak who needs to be the center of attention.
Furthermore, if you really want the Tanker to be the "Leader AT", then that's even more justification for their damage to not be crap. Superman, Optimus Prime, Cyclops, they're more powerful than their subordinates. They have the devastating power and it comes with the burden to use it wisely that teaches them responsibility, thus the mantle of leadership falls to them. CoH Tankers have the burden, but not the power. If you think they're intended to carry the team, they need to start being treated better than aggro monkeys. If they're going to be leaders, they need to be someone to follow, not low damage decoys.
. -
Quote:Presumably, if you wish to "help" an AT, making it more attractive so people want to play it goes in hand with that. While it may not have been the main goal of the devs for Stalkers (I'm betting it probably was *a* goal), for example, it was an outcome that was favorable.Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
Maybe I missed it, but who is trying to increase Tanker popularity, and why?
If you don't care about what people think of the AT, then there's no real point in making any changes. If Blasters are under-performing and need a buff, but you don't care that people are playing them or not, there's no real point doing anything for them.
Obviously, the devs want all ATs to hold some appeal to everyone. Is it possible to make them all appeal equally to everyone? Probably not. But if you can improve their standing with the masses without doing any damage to balance between them, then by all means.
. -
Quote:You know, I don't know why they didn't sell that more. A dev diary in the launcher, plus sending word around to the news outlets...Originally Posted by Tater Todd
I understand Johnny but a lot of people still don't know about the Stalker change even when playing one and seeing the Assassin's Focus Icon *sigh*.
Did they even do a dev diary about it? I know they pimped it on the ustream.
I understand they can only do so much, but the buff was such a game changer people should know.
That would be game breaking. I think the Tanker's damage cap should be buffed to bring it in line with the Brute's cap, but it also has to take Bruising and the HP difference into account. That improves their damage potential, especially on teams.Quote:Well my idea has been scrapped...what if Tankers had their damage upped to a Brute's level...do you think people would roll one then?
Then they could use something unique that gives them a little pizzazz. I was kicking around an idea of a Burnout like ability that only affects a Tanker's secondary, letting them double up on a powerful attack every so often, perhaps at a cost. I have no idea if that would be OP or not. I suppose it depends on how often is 'every so often' and what the penalty is.
. -
I'm going to say this, and I'd like people to keep an open mind. Don't focus on the messenger, but listen to the message.
Most people playing this game don't know there's an aggro cap, let alone what it is, let alone think that it's too low. I highly doubt that raising it is going to make Tankers any more appealing except to a relative few hard core players, as most players wouldn't even notice the difference.
Furthermore, if you're trying to increase Tanker popularity with the masses, making the toughest AT even tougher isn't going to do it. If they're not playing Tankers now, it's because being tough isn't enough of a selling point to them, especially at the cost of so much damage. That is not going to improve Tanker's image of being slow, low damage and boring. If people wanted premium survivability at the cost of losing a ton of offensive capability, Stone Armor would be the most popular power set in the game. Pushing Tankers further towards the extreme, and pushing them further into a niche doesn't help them.
I ask you to look at what was done for Stalkers. They didn't play up their hide-and-backstab shtick further because they were hurting for being too specialized around that. What they did was improve their fighting ability and damage they could do when not hidden and increased their HP cap for a bit more survivability. In other words, they brought them a little bit closer towards middle and made them a little more rounded than they were before. And they are all the better for it. I've rolled and kept more Stalkers since their buffs than I ever have, largely because they don't feel so much like one-trick ponies now.
The same should be done for Tankers. They're currently one-trick aggro ponies. They could stand to be able to pitch in with the damage dealing a little more and have their damage cap increased the same way Stalkers had their HP cap increased. Because I'm sure if you asked people why they're not playing Tankers, they're not going to answer that it's because they're not tough enough and the aggro cap is too low.
. -
I love this thread. It's like turning over a rock.
. -
Quote:Pretty sure you're not going to take the time to tap all the foes in a spawn with your T1 before you Judgement them. Even taking the time to Bruise one isn't worth it.Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
In fact, for Tanks, they deal more thanks to bruising.
And with Interface, again it's only single targets. In the overall scheme with a large spawn, it's trivial.
Also, I'll even give you a freebee. You missed Lore. Bruising helps Lore. But if I wanted awesome pets that damaged more than me, I would have rolled a Mastermind.
You bring them closer to a point, but as soon as you add damage buffs to the mix and the Tanker hits his damage cap while the Brute keeps going, they're going to move apart again, further than Bruising brings them.Quote:If you have a Brute doing 200 DPS and a tank doing 150 DPS and increase both by the same number (Let's say 50), you actually bring them closer together. They're still 50 DPS apart, but 50 DPS is smaller compared to 250 than when compared to 200.
You really should have used Scrappers for your example. :\
When missions most often end with an EB that Brutes can survive just fine and defeat more quickly, yes.Quote:Conversely, if two ATs are defeating things in three attacks, does it matter that the Brute spent a ton of damage on overkill?
You can't survive "better". You either do (consistently) for a given scenario or you don't. Brutes do, far too often compared to Tankers, for dealing more damage. They tanked for red side for years with no problems. Brutes don't have poor survivability at all, and it only gets better with the more IOs, temp powers and Incarnate abilities added to the game.Quote:To the vast majority of players and missions, Tanks survive better than Brutes and Brutes deal more damage.
Right now on Beta I've got a Brute that finished DA on +4x8. Hybrid boosts his damage through the roof and I've also got the option to go for Hybrid Melee.
My Tanker, who also ran DA on +4x8, has less damage than my Brute, is at the cap and has no way to get any more substantially. You can call it an edge case if you want, but I know far too many people with Brutes who can do the same.
. -
Quote:A fair point, but at this point in time, Hybrid exists in a specific form. Until we know it has changed otherwise, this is the only way to discuss it. It's germane to the point, after all, so I think it should enter into the discussion. Everyone understands that it could change before launch, but that shouldn't stop us from speculating based on how it is now. For all we know, Blasters and Khelds could get massive buffs and the devs bake them a cake in issue 30. So, we should stop discussing how things are for them based on today's status quo?Originally Posted by MajorDecoy
I don't think it's appropriate to discuss the mitigation potentials of Hybrid Melee at current. We should first see what they decide to launch it like.
. -
Quote:That is incorrect. Defeating things faster means you can complete the mission faster, and thus complete more missions in a given time. You will also level faster, gain inf faster, etc.Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
Defeating things consistently means you are dealing enough damage; as much as you need to. Having more than that is largely pointless in that situation.
If they're all getting nukes and Interface procs, their damage dealing relative to each other is staying pretty much the same.Quote:If melee ATs have their damage balanced against their survival, then it becomes a bit unfair when you allow all of them to throw nukes and have equal DoT procs on all their attacks (like with level shifts, Judgement and Interface Powers and Hybrid Melee) yet maintain the damage mitigation differences relative to each other.
It doesn't work when you flip it around because survival relative to the enemies is what matters when it comes to survivability.
If two ATs are faceplanting to the same thing, does it really matter once has 10% more HP than the other? Conversely, if both are shrugging off the damage to the same thing, does it matter that one has twice the HP?
Once consistent survival is reached and you're above the immortality line for that situation, more survival than that really doesn't help. The returns diminish sharply. Damage doesn't quite work like that because (for the purpose of this comparison) the line where more of it becomes redundant is much higher (when all of your attacks can one shot everything, including Hamidon).
. -
Quote:Tankers mitigate damage better than Brutes.Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
It should be worded "Tankers mitigate damage better than Brutes."
But, especially with IOs and Incarnate powers, Brutes can mitigate damage so well that it doesn't really matter that they mitigate it worse than Tankers. Surviving consistently means you are mitigating enough damage; as much as you need to. Having more than that is largely pointless in that situation.
If melee ATs have their survivability balanced against the damage they deal, then it becomes a bit unfair when you allow all of them to be safer relative to the enemies in the game (like with level shifts, Destiny buffs and Hybrid Melee) yet maintain the same damage differences relative to each other.
It becomes most unfair to the AT balanced on the far survival end of the spectrum that gives up damage in order to do things like stand up to hazard sized spawns when ATs with better damage than them can cap their Defense with IOs, grab Destiny buffs and Hybrid Melee and then beat those hazard spawns while retaining superior damage.
. -
Quote:I think they could stand to strengthen the effects of swapping ammo.Originally Posted by BrandX
So we're all agreed. What really needs improving is Dual Pistols! MORE DAMAGE, little tweaking of animations! \o/
<_<;;
What?!
Which of course would improve their damage with Incendiary.
. -
Quote:Place Twinkies at the Sybil temple on the ITF and then go pick them up in Who Will Die part 5.Originally Posted by Aneko
There would need to be some reference to Twinkies being immortal.
. -
Quote:You are probably in the best situation of all Tankers to make use of Assault (barring endurance concerns). You can be at the damage cap and get oodles of damage beyond that from your bonus damage DoT, Firey Embrace and Burn.Originally Posted by Severe
ahhh but im a fire/fire tank so without a double stacked rage it seems it might be ok for me more then other tanks..
. -
Quote:Oh mannnnn...Originally Posted by MajorDecoy
Yes, but why would it be only one power? Clearly we should have a Fruit Pie power pool with a self-heal, a single target placate, an AoE placate, and a confuse.
Fruit Pie Armor.
. -
Quote:I've suggested a [Fruit Pie] Placate/Confuse power before.Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
I want to see Lord Recluse distracted by a box full of fruit pies!
And Ghost Widow. "Even ghosts can appreciate the deliciousness of Twinkies cakes!"
I'm sure I'm not the only one.
. -
Quote:If by that you mean I don't like that they have been made the buttmonkey of the game and were thrown under a bus by the devs in favor of Brutes, then yes, because they have been.Originally Posted by Megajoule
Reading this thread has made one thing clear to me:
JB doesn't actually like Tankers.
And when I see some Tanker players that are unhappy about the damage they do but are resigned to it and make excuses for things they know are unfair, I have to conclude that they are very much "part of the problem".
.